Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday December 06, 2009 @10:52PM
from the license-quicksand dept.

zaxl writes "Palm is being sued by Artifex Software over the PDF viewer in Palm's Pre smartphone, which may violate the GNU GPL. Artifex alleges that Palm has copied Artifex's PDF rendering engine, called muPDF, and integrated it into the Palm Pre's PDF viewer application without the proper licensing conditions. The entire application must be licensed under the GPL if muPDF is part of the application. It seems more and more cell phones are shipping with open source code, but in a closed manner."

...since Palm mentions muPDF in their documentation, and they don't have a commercial license for it. Anyone in the software industry, anyone using libraries they didn't write, should understand that there's a difference between "open source" and "public domain."

The pre actually ships with a fair amount of code on it: It's based on a Linux system, after all. Hook it up as a USB drive, and there will be a folder with a copy of the GPL and the full code for much of the OS.

If Palm actually shipped this without the right licensing, I'll bet it's an oversight. I'm betting the first Palm knew of this was when the lawsuit reached them.

Just look at PDFViewer.cpp. That is definitely not GPL. It states that the material in the file is the proprietary property of palm. So this provides evidence that they did break the GPL assuming this is part of the PDF viewer software.

The GPL doesn't require the source to be included, just that it be available in the same place. Which one would assume in this case would require that Palm provide that code in their store. I forget about cases where the code is itself completely unmodified from the originals are dealt with specifically.

In this case if Palm is dynamically linking rather than statically linking the software and isn't modifying the GPL software, they have a legitimate argument as to whether or not they have to comply with

The terms are really simple here, and the violation is obvious. If you distribute mods, you must distribute code. No evidence of code out there.... and the app doesn't exist in a vacuum. The argument really isn't legitimate. If fact, it's quite clear what the problem is: violation.

Douglas Adams once posited in The Deeper Meaning Of Liff that the shortest measurable duration of time in the universe was "the time elapsed between the light turning green, and the driver behind you blowing his horn". I now beg to differ. It's the time between someone claiming a GPL violation, and the Open Source hordes clamboring for someone's head, regardless of merit.

the violation is obvious

No evidence of code out there.... and the app doesn't exist in a vacuum.

if Palm is dynamically linking rather than statically linking
the software and isn't modifying the GPL software, they have a legitimate
argument as to whether or not they have to comply with the more onerous
licensing terms. Meaning that they don't have to license their application as
GPL.

Incorrect. If they statically link or dynamically link, they *must* license as GPL. What you're probably thinking of is if the libraries that they link to (dynamically or statically) happen to be LGPL, then they would have a choice. But if one of the libraries is GPL, then they have to show the complete source for each executable which links to it.

It would be a bullshit license if they required that code that uses dynamic
linking had to be GPLed as well.

The GPL is not a bullshit license, it's very well thought out so that bullshit
companies who just want to leach someone else's code can't do it.

Don't forget that Palm here plays the role of a distro. They are selling a piece of hardware with a distribution on it. So the linking, whether static or dynamic, is their decision prior to distribution. The user's choice to combine the executable with some GPL library is not involved at any stage.

How hard is it to just release a totally OSS version of your OS with all applications and stuff there and let people modify it and put it on your phone? I really don't see the point of trying to complicate things by closing the OSS. Release everything for free and you can take a lot more free code and not having to worry about paying lots of money when you are caught.

I think the most common reason in this market might be meaningless product differentiation by simply switching bits. Customers shouldn't know that the only difference between two devices is the "if( expensive ){ enable_features() }" line.

Another reason is that people will see how many patents they use without permission, and stuff like that.

The publicly given reason is of course that it would enable the competition to gain advantage of their oh-so-valuable-software.

Sure they would, if they sold directly to their REAL customers, the end-user who uses the damn thing.

The TelCo's will only go so far before they say ( and rightly so ) stop, this has to be locked down, we cannot risk the entire cell ecosystem on a phone that can be completely modified to do anything.

This is entirely false. If it were true, then there is no way GSM providers would ever allow an unlocked device on their network. After all, there's no way they could ever be certain about such a device. And the only thing preventing a GSM baseband is patents.

To allow a completely open source re-programmable phone is to invite disaster.

Is it? I suppose to allow any fully open source, reprogrammable computer on the internet is an invitation to disaster. And yet the least open source of OSes, Windows, causes the most havoc. What's your logic in this?

If your phone can screw up the towers, then there's something wrong with the towers. Eventually they will ignore your device, if it persists the company will register an FCC complaint. You aren't going to knock out a tower because of bad programming, at worst your phone will be ignored, and if you're unlucky you'll see a bunch of minutes or data billed on your account because it bugged out (after the battery dies in a flash.)

The truth is in the middle. No, a truly open phone isn't going to wreck anything. But the carriers won't sell it, because that would endanger their nickle-and-dime model. They do NOT want people to see them as just a mobile ISP.

Yeah, a handset maker could sell them directly to the customer, but that market is simply too small. Almost everybody leases their phone directly from the carrier. What we need is an Android-type device running on a WiMAX network that realizes it's just a dumb pipe...then we'll get some progress.

Just got my N900 the other day... and the way this phone integrates with Skype is a thing of beauty. With WiFi + 3G and I have slim to no reason to use any minutes.
You are right though.... carriers are afraid of this.. and I can see why... because who's going to pay $70 a month for lackluster internet service... while the whole arbitrary minutes to $ value is a good way to make a lot of money.
Thus I had to order my phone from Dell... and T-Mobile gives you the same deals as a contract with no contract if you don't want any phone subsidies.
I think all communications companies need to realize they're all going to be ISPs in the future, and the only thing they'll be able to charge for is how much bandwidth they deliver.
I also think that T-Mobile starting to realize that... seeing as how they offer a $40 data-only plan... to which I'm considering switching eventually.... after I see how this Skype thing plays out over time...

Why not? The GSM/CDMA part can still be implemented separately, say on a separate chip and the all other functions of the phone on an arm processor which can run any compatible OS of your choice, may be even an OSS OS.

This way, the cell tower is safe and you get to run any application/library, add external devices to the phone without requiring the blessings of the manufacturer or the cell phone providers.

I dont understand why this is not possible. Hell, they could even make a USB based GSM/CDMA card

On the iPhone it's still a separate chip. As far as I know, the interface isn't a serial line. Instead, it's a higher-bandwidth interface with a multiplexing protocol for several channels. Some of these virtual channels do emulate good old serial lines, and the AT command part is completely true.

Uh, no. Talking to a baseband chip is like talking to a 3G USB modem. Barring exploits and other ways to actually run code on the chip and mess with the radio, there's nothing you can do to break FCC rules.

In Palm's case, they would never sell any phones, not because the software is Open Source but because no US carrier would let it on their network.

fixed that for ya, in EU you can buy any phone (at a higher price) and 3 pay as you go sim cards from different carriers and use whichever card you want when you want. The US is the only country I am aware of with a phone-tied-to-carrier system.

The US is the only country I am aware of with a phone-tied-to-carrier system.

Even in the US, as long as you use GSM pones, they are not tied to the network. T-Mobile will provide unlock codes for phones they sell, so you can unlock your phone and take it to AT&T. I know this works because I have done it. I have also used phones bought in Europe on T-Mobile's network.

Oh come on... I can buy a GSM modem and stick it on an embedded board from embeddedarm.com. I now have a fully programmable open phone that, according to you, I can now use to wreak utter havoc on the cell phone industry. (I know, I programmed one. A direct bridge between the GSM network and our wifi network. Wneee! Hear those towers toppling!)

Not really. It's the same bullshit argument you hear about almost anything these days - can't trust the user, have to lock it down, we need DRM, those users are all thieves.

BULLSHIT! It only inconveniences the legit users, not those who really want to destroy civilization.

it is entirely another when you take out a whole cell tower or several cell towers do to either malicious programing or just bad programming

Don't be silly. You drank the Apple FUD coolaid. Anybody can build, or even easier, buy a GSM scrambler for a small range [dealextreme.com]. Make it a bit more powerful and you can blanket whole blocks. You could have done so for decades.

And now Apple (and others) are getting comments on their closed ecosystem, and they respond with FUD: "teh evil terr'ists can COMPLETELY jam our phones ZOMG". And you actually believe there isn't a much easier way?

I am quite sure many people have tried to hack the tower interface in the spirit of Captain Crunch [wikipedia.org] but who knows how many have tried and succeeded and kept quiet ( although I am quite sure the bragging rights would be legend ), tried and succeeded and ben arrested, tried and succeeded and been paid to be quiet or tried and failed.

Trust me, I am pretty sure we will never know because I am quite sure that the phone companies want that kept quiet.

Well, that depends. If the discussion revolves around people wanting to share files regardless of copyright, this community is probably against copyright law. If the discussion is about [insert large company here] violating the GPL, then copyright law is awesome. It's a simple conditional.

You seem to be confused. If we can talk about a copyright law consensus on slashdot, that consensus would be that copyright is there to benefit the authors but it should not be used as a weapon to hinder any social, cultural and educational use of any copyrighted work. That, oddly enough, is the premises where the french copyright tradition is built upon. That is the reason why commercial distribution of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is frowned upon (i.e., piracy) but if you can (or at least should) be able to freely access copyrighted works without the need for an authorization of the copyright owner if it's strictly for personal use and your distribution does not have any meaningful and measurable impact on the commercial distribution. It's straight forward and it has been the norm in an awful lot of countries, at least until the US started to force it's version of copyright law onto the world.

should not be used as a weapon to hinder any social, cultural and educational use of any copyrighted work

I strongly disagree on two points. First, to say that the average Slashdot reader honestly has the public good in mind when talking about copyright policy is laughable. The most frequent post simply amounts to "damn those big companies, I'll do what I want."

Next, I personally disagree with your view on the purpose of copyrights. While I accept that copyright law has gotten completely out of hand with absurd extensions on the lifetime of copyrights, I vehemently oppose the idea that there should be varyin

You say, "there should not be a law...". Well, if there were no law, then the copyright holder would have no protections whatsoever. Absent a law, you have no ability or right to stop me from doing anything I want with respect to copying of a copyable work. Only the law grants you a limited monopoly. In exchange for that limited monopoly (benefitting, you, the copyright holder) there is supposed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Lose site of that, and there is no reason to have copyright. So, now that

I strongly disagree on two points. First, to say that the average Slashdot reader honestly has the public good in mind when talking about copyright policy is laughable. The most frequent post simply amounts to "damn those big companies, I'll do what I want."

I can't (nor can anyone) speak for all slashdotters. Yet, I believe the explanation of why everyone should be able to freely access copyrighted works without the author's explicit authorization if it's for personal use and the commercial distribution i

Contrary to popular belief, comments on Slashdot are written by multiple users just like yourself (but different!).

As it actually happens, the set of people who feel compelled to comment and moderate on "Pirate Bay" stories may not be exactly the same set of people that comment and moderate on GPL licensing stories.

Of the users who comment or moderate on both kinds of stories, some might have what appear to you to be contradicting viewpoints, but you may need to stop looking at everything as black and white - maybe you'll learn something.

I understand how "RIAA should not be destroying people's lives for downloading songs" could be interpreted by you to mean "Copyright sucks, and anyone should have the right to copy anything they want." But there's actually a not-so-subtle difference between those two viewpoints.

I also understand how you might interpret "Corporations need to comply with the terms under which they licensed others' software by releasing their source code or remove the copyright software from their product" as "Burn the evil corporations at the stake", but again, these arguments are not the same thing.

Uh, no, the GPL isn't a copyright license, it's a procedural use of code that may or may not otherwise be bound by copyright. The 'open' side of the license, should a coder be bound by it, doesn't nullify copyright, and never did. It's a usage license that defines the procedure under which the code can subsequently be used, how modifications are treated, and says how the use of the code binds one to the obligations of the license.

Actually, copyrights are the basis of the GPL, RMS and the FSF have never denied this. The copyleft strategy is intended to reverse the normal manner in which copyrights are used, but copyrights still form the basis of the license. This is why the GPL carries legal weight, why it stands up in court, and why companies bother paying attention to it.

The only reason we have software licenses at all is copyright. Installing software requires at least one copy of the software to be made; thus, unlike a paper book, you must get the permission of the copyright holder to use their software even after you purchase (or otherwise obtain) a copy. The copyright holder can give you such permission with all sorts of restrictions, or without any restrictions at all (such was with the BSD license).

I am not saying that this system is ideal or that I support it, but it is the reality that we have to deal with.

In general/. seems to support the easy spread of information. Slashdot isn't inherently against copyright, just cases where it restricts the flow of information (basically everything but GPL). Of course many people like to over generalize and take sides for or against copyright without boiling it down to the basic issues.

If your comment is taking a stab at those who over generalize, you understand this already. I realize I'm generalizing too.

I don't know why there's a suit unless someone requested the code and was denied, but Palm clearly advertise the fact that they use the app. The document is 37 pages long, but it's not hard to find references to the software they use.

Further to your comment, I pulled down the source code from Palm (http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html) and compared it to the the earliest source I could find on Artifex's site. Palm is using an earlier version (02-Mar-2008) of the muPDF source which is licensed under GPLv2. Artifex's available source(01-Jul-2009) is GPLv3.

IIRC GPLv2 allows Palm to distribute the application as they are doing.

If you look at the Artifex license page (http://www.artifex.com/indexlicense.htm) you will actually see that they have a very strange interpretation of the GPL. They basically claim that you can't bundle Ghostscript together with non-GPL programs, or install it with the same installer. If they used the same legal advice for writing their licensing terms as they have used for filing the lawsuit, then it might turn up in the end that the whole case has no merit...

... you must be new here? Or you're technologically impaired and know not a thing about Palm.

This is not the place for you - go back to Digg/Wikipedia where you belong. This is a place for people with EXPERIENCE AND FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE to discuss things, not provide bullshit citations from some wiki that any moron can edit, for morons with the weakest google-fu on the fucking planet or just plain lazy fools without a clue.

What? If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, this is not the site for you. Digg and Reddit are for those that demand everything spoon-fed to them.

Here on slashdot, the subject we discuss tend to be a major part of our lives, as usually it's our JOB. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE'RE PAID TO KNOW THIS.

Elitist? No, I'm sick and tired of you too-lazy-to-work/study-for-yourself gimme-everything because I'm too stupid to look for myself people. If you can't do your own research and either confirm or outright

Totally not seeing any way in which what you said could be read as disagreeing with what I wrote. Distribution is only one way to use software. It happens to be the one that Palm chose for this, so no other terms could apply.

Like all licences, GPL constrains how you may used the licensed thing.

You said "used" which I assumed was supposed to be "use". Use and distribution are two different things. Distribution is not a way to use software. Even if it was, the gpl is very explicit in its goal to only cover only distribution. Many people get confused over this point and think that they are not free to use GPL in a personal project that will never be distributed.That's why I responded: to clarify your statement in the general sense. Yes, in the case of palm they did distribute. But, I think its more important that people understand what the GPL says, then the specifics of any one case. This is why you will notice any actual reference to this case in my first post.

A great example of this is something like MySql. I can change the software to do what ever I want, and use it on my server to build a facebook killer, without being required to distribute the source code for it, even though its licensed under the GPL. Because, again the GPL only covers distribution, not use( or other uses if you insist on your ridiculous definition of use that includes distribution).

Also, you misspelled licenses. I'm usually the guy that people point out grammatical errors to, rather than visa versa. But, still, if you are going to offer advice about a subject, it helps your creditability to actually spell it correctly. Or at least use a web browser with integrated spell checking. Again, the point of posting was not nitpicking, but clarifying as posts similar to your last one have led to quite a bit of misinformation about the GPL license.

Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project

The GPL is for open source software whose authors wish to encourage the development of open source software. If you're not writing open source software, you look for another solution or write it your damn self. If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.

Now, you can either use that functionality, but would be forced to relicense your project as GPL (thereby giving up your freedom of being able to choose how you want to license the code you have written), or re-implement the same functionality yourself and license it as MIT (thereby duplicating effort).

That is exactly the point. You have the freedom to use GPL code so long as you release any linked code as GPL as well, or you can rewrite it yourself or use an alternative. Everybody wins!

Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).

Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.

Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.

That's because everyone isn't working towards a common goal. Open source is a means to an end, but that end is different for different people.

Some people just have the goal of creating software that others can freely incorporate into their own projects (providing freedom for developers and quality software for end users). BSD is fine for them.

Other people have the goal of creating software that will always be free for its end users to examine and modify (providing freedom for developers, quality software fo

Not always possible. I've released BSD-licensed programs that depend on Apache-licensed libraries. The GPL is not compatible with the Apache license, so I can't change the license of my code to the GPL, even if I want to. I could ask the upstream author of the Apache licensed library to make it GPL'd, but why would they? They don't want people to integrate their code with less permissively licensed code.

As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).

[Emphasis mine.]

You're forced? Is the GPL being implemented at gunpoint now? Nobody forced you to use GPL software. It's your choice if you want to avail yourself of the hard work of others or not. If you do, then the least you could do is to respect their wishes about how the fruits of their labour are used.

So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).

If by 'certain circumstances' you mean that the GPL is a bullshit license because you want to use it in ways that it wasn't intended to be used, well... you have less than my fullest sympathy.

The thing is the GPL isn't the "golden chalice" even for the FSF. That's why they have the LGPL. And nobody (that I've ever heard of, anyway) is going to criticize anybody for choosing another free license (like BSD) either. Choosing the correct license is a very important thing and every developer should think very carefully about it before they release. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard developers complain about being "ripped off" because somebody used their code in a "commercial product

Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.

Honestly, I have some issues with the LGPL, but they're a hell of a lot less because that aspect is gone. The "linking to my code counts as directly using my code" clause in the GPL is complete and utter bullshit.

Can you please point to that clause in the GPL? My google search [google.com] for that clause isn't working very well.

Please refrain from using GPL licensed code in your projects, then. Now that we've solved the problem for you, let's fix your first statement with regard to Palm: "Well, if Palm hadn't decided to include code licensed under the GPL and subsequently ignore the requirements of the license, shipping shitloads of infringing units, this wouldn't be a problem."

I don't license my stuff under the GPL; I prefer BSD-style licensing. However, the copyright holder is free to choose how they want their stuff distributed. Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.

Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.

I'd prefer them to just publish the viral parts of the app. These private entities should pay the real price for including GPL code with their own. By taking bribe money, the copyright owners only reinforce bad behavior, showing that instead of abiding by the terms, these devs can be bought.

If you use someone else's (copyrighted) code you must abide by the license restriction. If it would be too costly to do so then you can't use the code.

Developers should fully understand whatever license they release under. If someone wants to restrict usage of their code to only open-source projects they are free to do so. If they want to release for the benefit of everyone they are free to do so. If they want to try to make some money off their efforts they are free to do so. The key is understanding what you're doing when you choose a license.

New GPL code is not a donation to the community. It is a payment to those who have written GPL code in the past, released on the understanding that others will pay for it by contributing further code. GPL carries restrictions, learn what they are before you use or write GPL code.

Bullshit license? Listen buddy, nobody is making you, Palm, or anyone else use it. I am sure if you used a proprietary company's source code you would be bound to worse restrictions. I honestly don't see what is with you anti-GPL trolls. Here's the deal with the GPL, I am offering you code to inspect, compile, and distribute to anyone on the planet. The only thing I require in return is that if you DISTRIBUTE changes to the code that you contribute with your changes. You may not like it but tough. You didn'

Which brings up a question I have had on my mind for quite awhile now since all these companies started getting sued for GPL violations, that nobody has really been able to answer: What is wrong with BSD? Is it broken, code sucks, bloated beyond repair, what?

Because it seems like from a business standpoint, especially after RMS wrote the "TiVo clause" into GPL V3, that the business world would just avoid anything GPL altogether, and stick with BSD code that won't come back to bite them in the ass. After all it worked for Apple and MSFT, so what is wrong with BSD? There has to be SOME reason why these companies keep snatching GPL and dealing with possible lawsuits when you can do whatever you want with BSD and all is golden, so what is it?

There are three open source PDF libraries that I am aware of. Two are GPL'd. Of these, one is GPL2 (no or-later clause) and works well, the other is GPL3 and is more or less vapourware. There is one BSDL PDF library, but it is written in Java and does not integrate well with non-Java programs. If you want to provide PDF functionality then you have three choices:

Use GPL'd code.

Pay for a proprietary implementation (FoxIt, Adobe, and a few other companies provide these)

Use Java code.

The second option is expensive and the third option will probably push the price of the device up (you need either more RAM or to pay ARM for the Jazelle extensions in the CPU core). The GPL'd option looks the least expensive. It's worth noting that iRex follows the GPL path and includes a GPL'd PDF reader on their devices. This has been forked by the community, and the community version is much nicer than the one that they supply. The rest of their software stack sucks (although the hardware is nice).

A lot of companies choose BSD licensed alternatives when they exist, but they are not always available. A lot of companies that choose BSD licensed alternatives contribute code upstream, because it's cheaper for them to do this than maintain their own fork. A lot of companies that use GPL'd code either spend time and effort isolating the GPL'd component so that they can avoid releasing their code, or just ignore the GPL and hope that they won't get caught. The latter option is quite common, but it's starting to become a lot less safe, so hopefully that will push more companies to seriously evaluate other options.

By the way, I recently interviewed the creators of a Linux-based handheld and asked them why they picked Linux over a BSD variant. Their answer had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of the platforms; they said it was simply to do with brand recognitions. If you say 'Linux based' then geeks buy it and non-geeks have probably heard something positive about Linux, even if they can't tell you what it is. If you say 'BSD-based' then a few geeks buy it and no one else knows what it means, so you don't get any marketing advantage.

"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that anyproducts compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have toits source code released. This was simply unacceptable."Either you're a troll or your lawyers are idiots. the FSF specifically explains this isn't the case.

ext2 stores data through the specific pattern of its fragmentation. Defragmenting would be like formatting your hard drive. Bad idea.

It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.

Actually, GPL stands for "General Public License", after the late General Reginald Franklin Public, who inspired Richard Stallman to much of his Free Software ideals when both were working on a then-classified national defense project (a device to automatically hack enemy computers that later was scrapped and reformed into the VAX line of computers).

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.

The GPL has a "mere aggregation" clause. It states that for any program on any computer aggregate with a computer running GPL software ("aggregated") you have to release the full source code to any program running on it. This is why Microsoft has come up with the "Shared Source" initiative - they accidentally installed the GIMP without reading the license.

We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

Note that you are now required to acquire and release the source code for Windows 2000 through whichever means neccessary.

I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".

Do note that Shared Source exists to satisfy the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause, which also sttes that the license you release the source code under must be GPL-compliant, which is defined as being "at least as draconic as the GPL". That is why the Shared Source license not only incorporates all of the GPL's restrictions but also prevents any company reading any Shared Source-licensed code file, for use in programming or as a reference or otherwise, from making any profits at all ever again (Shared Source License, art. 19.b.ii.).

Your company is committing felony copyright infringement and should turn itself in now before ACTA is enacted, which will equalize the legal repercussions for software and high-seas piracy, temporarily extraterritorialize the premises of infringers and set a mandatory bounty on the infringers' heads. If you don't want people to storm your premises and shoot you at their leisure, you should act now while the penalty is merely twenty years of prison time and a permanent ban from working with computers ever again for your entire company.

The industry is moving to BSD-style licenses because they're just now finding out that they can and will be sued if they blatantly violate the terms of the licenses on other persons' code? Is this seriously a revelation to anyone, and do you honestly believe that it's changing anything? I'd really like to see some backing to the statement "The GPL is dead," because last I checked there was a pretty immensely large body of GPL code still in use, and there's no indication of any significant portion of it fading into obscurity because ZOMG IT'S UNDER TEH EVIL GPL.

This simply isn't true. The choices have been there for a long time. Palm could have used something else. They didn't. They could have also complied with the GPL license, and no sweat, no harm, no fowl. They didn't, it appears.

Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry? Did they actually use GPL-style licenses before? Got anything to back this up? This is one of the most opaque attempt at spreading FUD [wikipedia.org] I've seen here on slashdot.

Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry?

FATI (Freeloaders And Takers International) made public anouncements that no longer will they stand by and take software that demands they do more than stand by and take software !

FATI have declared they will setup a protest webpage at becomeafati.com where freeloaders and takers from all over the globe can declare their intent to idly stand and waiting for other people to give them what they want when they want it.

LATE NEWS: FATI are demanding somebody else setup their webpage NOW and place it under an anything goes style license.

I'm not sure what the OP's source is, but he's probably referring to how the GPL is often thought of as the holy grail or end-all-be-all free license, and how most companies releasing free code nowadays tend to stick with MIT and Apache2.0 among others. That, plus the GPL probably isn't as prevalent as many assume. Many small, inconsequential projects and doodads choose the GPL (hey, it's what people think of when they think open source), but beyond the obvious big projects Linux and MySQL, there are a lo

Just another example of why the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses. Face it, the GPL is dead and Stallman's socialist dream along with it.

The LGPL, notice the L, will do just fine in those cases where software authors find that the GPL is too restrictive. And the GPL does a great job at protecting real people, if some corporation has a problem with releasing their code under GPL then that is their problem. The GPL says that you can not take free code and make it non-free, I do not see the lack of being able to take freedom away as a problem. But then again, I am not a evil corporation.

That is one hell of a wild-assed assertion. GPL is far from dead. BSD licenses guarantee that business and industry will take what they want and give nothing in return. BSD licensed code begs to be abused and to be used as a means to abuse the very public it came from. One look at Mac OS or MS Windows should that much easily enough.

I can't say I fully agree with the whole GPL thing, but I get the general idea and I'm pretty okay with it. So it comes with strings attached -- strings that guarantee that

Yeah the "industry" would love all open source code to be BSD so they can use it with impunity. Honestly let's stop this FUD. It's simply not true. Code under the GPL is no different from code under any other license. If you don't use it in compliance with the license then you are in a copyright violation situation, and the law allows financial remedies for such a case. The fact that it is GPL is irrelevant to this. Also the summary is incorrect. Palm is in a copyright violation now and have three choices: 1. remove the GPL code, 2. license the code under a different arrangement, and 3. License their derivative product as GPL.

Why are you upset when copyright holders exercise their rights under the law to prevent a company from knowingly or unknowingly rip them off? How would BSD help this situation? Because the GPL actually has teeth we're starting to see the tip of the ice berg as far as willful license violations go. It's impossible to judge how much code is being used illegally in proprietary products. We're not talking GPL either. Any license. Microsoft code, code from some other source.

Do liberty and capitalism allow one the right to violate copyrights? The GPL exists to protect the rights and freedoms of the developers and the end users while allowing free redistribution of code. I know of no other license that does this so effectively. In my opinion, if all open source code was BSD, there really would be no open source community or ecosystem. Like Adam Smith said, sometimes you have to balance self-interest with self-interest. The BSD doesn't do that really well. Certainly there is zero incentive for a company to release code under the BSD if it's just going to be used directly against them. The GPL allows companies to foster communities and promote development, while maintaining a level playing field for all the players.